I enjoyed your post and it stimulated good discussion, so take 'nothing personnel'
Critiquing viewpoints out in the open serves to stimulate even more good discussion, so we should not shy away from it, and I do not pretend to be an infallible authority myself.
The thing about the stigma of mass-murderers is that it serves to give us publicity, and social changes are never achieved without an associated threat against society, whether potential or kinetic or both.
The reason capitalists were so conciliatory in the latter 20th century (until the Reagan era) was the threat of communism, and it was not until this threat receded that they felt confident enough to impose onto society the financialized wageslavery which now pervades it.
Richard Nixon and even George Wallace (or George Wallace and
even Richard Nixon, depending upon your prejudices) was economically to the left of most Democratic Party politicians today.
The point being that if we were merely a movement of men unattractive to women seeking social acceptance, and had no connotations of rebelliousness, then we would logically have no choice but to embrace the bluepill and play out our allotted roles of being socially stepped upon and exploited for exceedingly diminishing returns.
Much like seduction, this comes with a bit of 'push and pull,' and the ultimate objective is for society to see that while most incels are not threatening, some are, and an increasingly high proportion too, and unless peaceful reforms are made, violent dislocations are inevitable. A chaotic society in which women and psychopathic parasites have unprecedented social powers and privileges yields similarly chaotic fruit.
There certainly are such people, and they rule over us, if they're not biting at our ankles.
